Xavier Hanin wrote:
On 3/19/07, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Xavier Hanin wrote:
> I've just checked in a build.xml doing the packaging trick, hope it
will
> fix
> your gump build.
thank you?
>
> - Xavier
>
> Sorry for the trouble,
No, this is exactly the kind of success that Gump is designed for: to
catch a regression on an OSS project, before you even think about
releasing it. We have just managed to identify and fix a problem before
it hit the field -which is why any project that can build under Gump,
should be registered under gump. Its a lot easier to fix a regression
when it went in the previous week, than when it only shows up in
shipping code, because that means it takes a whole release cycle to get
the fix in, and it runs the risk of breaking somebody else if they
actually depend on the regression's behaviour
Agreed, but I even prefer avoiding the break :-) But you're right, this
continuous integration is really a good thing, it adds even more tests to
Ivy, which is really good!
If you look at what breaks Ant in the field, its things gump doesnt test
-classloader and classpath setup (gump takes over)
-bad system installations (ant.sh from ant1.6 via jpackage but ANT_HOME
set to Ant1.7, etc)
-windows systems with spaces and quotes in classpaths
-the shell scripts, again, mostly on windows.
so be aware that Gump doesnt catch thesel; you still need a release cycle
